Jump to content


Photo

The official Stratego low content thread


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#121 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 20 October 2018 - 09:37 PM

I was also thinking about the flag with this scout rule and it would make it protectable in certain circumstances that it would not otherwise be protectable.
  • UnladenSwallow likes this

#122 Fks

Fks

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2018 - 11:17 PM

When I used to play growing up with my brothers we played the scout can only jump if it was hitting something... it takes a lot out of the game though if you play this way.
Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#123 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 20 October 2018 - 11:37 PM

... it takes a lot of the game though if you play this way.

This rule sounds interesting. What do you mean by "takes a lot of the game".

It's interesting that the way you played the scout is the opposite of the rule I brought up. They are complete opposites of each other compared to the way we use the scout on Stratego.com.

#124 Fks

Fks

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2018 - 11:38 PM

This rule sounds interesting. What do you mean by "takes a lot of the game".

takes a lot out of the game. In a sense it adds as well.
Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#125 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 20 October 2018 - 11:41 PM

Yes, I dislike that rule as much as the one I brought up. I like the variety of options with the scout that Stratego.com allows.
For the Gravon and Meta players, was the scout played like Stratego.com or different?

#126 Losermaker

Losermaker

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 989 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 October 2018 - 07:09 AM

The scout was played the same as here on both, but there may have been an option to play without the distance attack on meta. Not sure.

#127 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,371 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 21 October 2018 - 08:02 AM

I have a topic I have wondered about. I am a nerd for loving to read Stratego rule books. I like to see consistency and inconsistencies. One rule I despise is when it says, "a scout may NOT move and strike in the same turn". Does anyone know anything about why this would be worded like this? Is it an American only rule? Not all American games say this, in fact, it is rare for the rule to be written this way.

.
This was indeed the rule I played with growing up. It is in the 1961 Milton Bradley version of the rules. What used to trip me up was the fact one is limited to either moving or attacking in his turn. My natural thinking is that you must move to attack so how can one ever attack if he can't move and attack in the same turn? This semantical dichotomy must simply be accepted, however.

But to get back to your point, the scout not being able to move and attack in the same turn has a big advantage in the way the rules are applied for threatening. There's no consistency problem with this rule like we have today.

Here's an example. If I'm on Gravon and double chasing my opponent with my sergeant on his miner on one leg and my colonel on his major in the other, then everyone understands that this gets stopped eventually through the programming (through moderator involvement here). But if one leg of my double chase is not the colonel on the major, but rather a scout on a marshal looking for identity info, and my scout is distant from the marshal, then even on Gravon this double chase can go on forever. This is because although a scout can attack at a distance, according to the ISF a piece must move adjacent to the piece it threatens in order to threaten...an obvious problem in the rules because of the scout's ability to attack at a distance. This is why The Prof and I proposed to the ISF a few years ago that they change the rules to recognize scout threatening at a distance since that's the reality we play with when it can attack at a distance.

If the ISF would have approved this request--to recognize a scout can threaten at a distance--the double chasing example I gave above would have been stopped by the rules.

The ISF never approved this request.

The alternative...to NOT allow the scout to attack at a distance...would take care of this logical inconsistency of needing to be adjacent to threaten and therefore chase at a distance, so would arguably be a cleaner fix to the issue than the way The Prof and I went. But the odds of pushing that through in today's environment seemed less than what we tried, so we went the way we did.

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#128 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 21 October 2018 - 01:30 PM

I think something in the way the scout attacks should fit a better play invironment, not consistency to some rule. I'm not disagreeing with you Gary, there seems to be a discrepency with the isf rules. What I'm saying is that the scout movement should be considered firstly, then the rules should be applied appropriately. It does seem the isf rules should change if indeed the scout CAN move and attack in the same turn.

Simply put, we should adjust the mechanism (isf rule) to the machine (scout capability), not the machine (scout capability) to the mechanism (isf rule).

We should find the best functioning machine, then place the mechanism to best support it.
  • Don_Homer likes this

#129 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 21 October 2018 - 01:47 PM

This could not be done online but I'm curious what people find takes more skill...the scout being able to move and attack in the same turn or it NOT being able to do so. Playing many games on an actual board with both rules would be the best way to figure it out.
  • GaryLShelton likes this

#130 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,371 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 21 October 2018 - 05:38 PM

It does seem the isf rules should change if indeed the scout CAN move and attack in the same turn.

 

But it cannot move and attack in the same turn.  One must accept the principle that the ISF can establish their own definitions for words.  A piece, according to the ISF rules:

 

 

5.1 Preparation

 

A turn consists of either moving a piece or attacking an opponent's piece. [emphasis added. gls]

 

It's a bit of a lapse of logic to deny that attacking doesn't require moving, perhaps, but this is the case according to the definition above.  The term that gets around this for the scout is that it "attacks at at distance".



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#131 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,371 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 21 October 2018 - 05:48 PM

Simply put, we should adjust the mechanism (isf rule) to the machine (scout capability), not the machine (scout capability) to the mechanism (isf rule).
 

 

Currently, the ISF rule on threatening and the scout's ability are not in sync.  Then why not make them in sync?  Change the ISF rule to match the scout's ability.  Why didn't the ISF want to do this?  They felt that there would be other ramifications to saying a scout could threaten at a distance that would change the game, though The Prof and I argued that this was not the case. 

 

If the scout's threatening ability were curtailed back to match the other pieces.  That is, if a scout were made to have to stop in front of the piece it wanted to attack, and then to attack it on its next turn, then all logical problems of threatening and chasing would be resolved.  The only problem with doing this is that we are all used to being able to attack at a distance with our scouts, and we don't want to give that up.  As long as that's the case, there will be this incontinuity in the ISF's rules on threatening.


  • TemplateRex likes this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#132 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,371 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 21 October 2018 - 06:25 PM

This could not be done online but I'm curious what people find takes more skill...the scout being able to move and attack in the same turn or it NOT being able to do so. Playing many games on an actual board with both rules would be the best way to figure it out.

 

Ryan, I think one could play this way on Probe, could he not?  That would be a decent approximation of the problems that one would run into.  At least the best online, I'm thinking.



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#133 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 21 October 2018 - 07:09 PM

Ryan, I think one could play this way on Probe, could he not?


That is a good point. It makes me realize two people could also play this way using an honour system online. You would simply not allow yourself to attack at a distance.

#134 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 21 October 2018 - 07:16 PM

It's a bit of a lapse of logic to deny that attacking doesn't require moving, perhaps, but this is the case according to the definition above. The term that gets around this for the scout is that it "attacks at at distance".

Gary, what if this is the whole delima with the rules I brought up to begin with. What if what the rules are stating in "a scout cannot move and attack in the same turn" is NOT saying that it can't attack from a distance but rather, it can't shoot from one end of the board to the other AND attack the flag to the left or right. This seems to be the same way the isf puts it yet the isf allows for attacking from a distance. I think I may have misunderstood the rules...although it is odd it does not specifically say it can attack from a distance. You would think they would make that clear.

What are your thoughts on this? Don Homer is usually good at chiming in with 'rules' discussions.

#135 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 21 October 2018 - 07:30 PM

Here is a picture of the rule. It is rule #8. Do you think this implies you can attack at a distance with a scout or no?

http://imgur.com/gallery/EdNoGi4

After looking at it again, I definitely think it is saying you cannot attack at a distance.

#136 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,371 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 21 October 2018 - 10:31 PM

Ryan, what rules are these? What I quoted earlier were the ISF rules. This language you show is confusing. It muddies up the whole issue. I'll grant you it says "The scout may not move and strike in the same turn", but by saying this it is implying that moving and striking in the same turn for the scout are possible. Per the ISF at 5.1 THEY ARE NOT. Again, under the ISF rules a piece can ONLY either move or attack (strike). IT CANNOT DO BOTH IN THE SAME TURN PER THE ISF. See Article 5.1 that I quoted above. This includes scouts. We'd better stick to the ISF for clarity, I think.

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#137 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 21 October 2018 - 10:43 PM

What are your thoughts on this? Don Homer is usually good at chiming in with 'rules' discussions.

Yes I like to chime in. First of all Its a little annoying that Gary keeps repeating the same thing. I think this already has been discussed. I have played 1000s of games and I believe the scout rules on ISF work perfectly. Text can be written better at some points though. 

 

.
This was indeed the rule I played with growing up. It is in the 1961 Milton Bradley version of the rules. {…}

 

[…]a scout on a marshal looking for identity info, and my scout is distant from the marshal, then even on Gravon this double chase can go on forever. This is because although a scout can attack at a distance, according to the ISF a piece must move adjacent to the piece it threatens in order to threaten...an obvious problem in the rules because of the scout's ability to attack at a distance. This is why The Prof and I proposed to the ISF a few years ago that they change the rules to recognize scout threatening at a distance since that's the reality we play with when it can attack at a distance.

The ISF never approved this request.

The alternative...to NOT allow the scout to attack at a distance...

So first alinea: Sentimentals. Your emotion is getting the better out of you and you lost your ratio. This gives you a bias which shows hisself in avoiding to see disadvantages of the changes.

 

Second alinea: If a scout can attack from a distance you know its a scout. After the long discussion that is already been held you (still) forget to mention this most important element. Furthermore if you counter chase it can be endless too if both parties do not want to give in. This is the same deal, giving in means your opponent loses the secrecy of his marshall (altough his evasive movement made it already logical to suspect an important piece. Also this only applies if there is not a third field where the marshall can hide.

 

So I dont see a problem.

 

Then we come to the idea to not allow distance attacking.

 

That is, if a scout were made to have to stop in front of the piece it wanted to attack, and then to attack it on its next turn, then all logical problems of threatening and chasing would be resolved. 

You are presuming here the piece you want to scout stays at the same spot in the next move. Maybe he will do this if there is no other option or if he is a junk piece (altough he can also hit your scout immedicately :)). However if its an important piece, he will likely walk away. The result is more chasing and less scouting. I think the game will be chaotic and less attractive this way. Scouts becoming less powerfull, flag protection will be easier, scout trading will be (near) impossible if one party doesnt want it, Spy catching will be more difficult even when the spy is open and free and very transpicious. Probably you didnt thought of these concequences, Gary. I hope you do next time you bring this up. 

 

So Im against fundamental chances to this ISF rule. But to prevent that this will be brought up every 3 months or so I would advice you to make a poll about it with a clear description of the changes and the pro's and cons to see what the community thinks about it. 


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#138 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 21 October 2018 - 11:13 PM

Gary, the rules I stated are the Onyx version of Stratego which is a Barnes and Noble collectors edition. It does not appear to imply that you can strike from a distance here as you said. It implies the opposite.

The isf allows for the scout to attack from a distance. The rules of isf and the onyx board sound similar yet seem to be different, this is partially what I'm so intrigued about regarding this topic. It is interesting that there is such a vast difference of opinion on what the scout should be allowed to demonstrate with its special ability. I'm wondering why this difference occurs and if it could be origin. I'm curious what the scout can do in L'Attaque and if jungle has a scout type of piece, what it was able to do as well. I'm also interested in knowing what the very first Stratego rules allowed the scout to do. I know this is a lot but getting to the bottom of this may take a lot of research.

#139 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,371 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 21 October 2018 - 11:52 PM

Ryan, first of all, I am perfectly aware that the ISF rules hold that a scout can attack at a distance.  All I have said in that regard is that they CANNOT MOVE AND ATTACK AT THE SAME TIME.   This is what is peculiar to the ISF rules.  I say "peculiar" because the most common understanding of the English words is that to attack a piece must move, but the ISF rules say that it is not.  It is only attacking.  Remember, per the ISF, a piece either moves or attacks, but not both.

 

The Onyx board rules are irrelevant if we are discussing the ISF rules, though it is interesting that you illustrated what they say on this topic.

 

Now, for the @ Don remarks,

 

Don, I'm sorry if you see any repetition I've possibly made as annoying.  But if there is repetition, there's reason. These things are a little hard to understand.  I just gave you an example of how the ISF scout rules conflict with the double chasing enforcement, and you say that you've played 1000's of ISF games and haven't seen this.  That may very well be true, because double chasing is not exactly an everyday thing.  Nonetheless, it doesn't invalidate what I have described.  All other factors the same (a very important phrase here), if you have a double chasing scenario with no means of escape for the chasee, and one leg of this is a scout chasing a piece that is distant to it, then this situation will NEVER be stopped by the ISF rules.  Why?  To threaten another piece the first piece must move adjacent to that piece, either vertical or horizontal to it. A scout does not do this when it is at a distance and they have not made any special rules for the scouts to be recognized as threatening from a distance even though they are perfectly able to attack at that same distance.

 

So therein lies the rub.  To fix this contradiction, it's as Ryan said earlier.  The two choices are to bring the rule to the reality, or the reality to the rule.

 

Simply put, we should adjust the mechanism (isf rule) to the machine (scout capability), not the machine (scout capability) to the mechanism (isf rule).

 

 

The Prof and I suggested the former because we recognize the present day norm of the game.  But the other choice, to change the reality of the scout's ability to make it conform to the ISF rule of adjacency is also a possibility to get rid of the scout chasing conflict.   scottrussia has argued passionately for this approach but he is a lone wolf. I only like his way because it is a cleaner fix to the problems of scouts and threatening/chasing that currently exist. But in so admitting I am not saying that I'm convinced it would be good for the game to make such a change.  It would certainly be interesting to play a bunch of games with that limitation and see how it affects things.  As I said above, Probe allows for this option to be set in a single player format.  



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#140 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 22 October 2018 - 10:36 AM

Now, for the @ Don remarks,

 

Don, I'm sorry if you see any repetition I've possibly made as annoying.  But if there is repetition, there's reason. These things are a little hard to understand.  I just gave you an example of how the ISF scout rules conflict with the double chasing enforcement, and you say that you've played 1000's of ISF games and haven't seen this.  That may very well be true, because double chasing is not exactly an everyday thing.  Nonetheless, it doesn't invalidate what I have described.  All other factors the same (a very important phrase here), if you have a double chasing scenario with no means of escape for the chasee, and one leg of this is a scout chasing a piece that is distant to it, then this situation will NEVER be stopped by the ISF rules.  Why?  To threaten another piece the first piece must move adjacent to that piece, either vertical or horizontal to it. A scout does not do this when it is at a distance and they have not made any special rules for the scouts to be recognized as threatening from a distance even though they are perfectly able to attack at that same distance.

Gary, your suggesting that I do not understand but I do understand. You on the other hand do not understand me. Your problem is semantics (which I might be agreeing that things should be written better) and you have a problem of situations that can go on forever (thats why I mentioned the counter chase, do you see the similarity?). 

 

The rules as they are now mean that a piece that is not in front of an other piece, (this includes scouts) are not considered threathening/chasing other pieces (even when they are). And I am perfectly fine with this. I think milions of games have been played like this and I never heard this complain before from somebody else (this includes many topplayers like your friend Nortrom). 

 

I believe changing the rules have more cons than pro's. Changing the semantics is another cookie. 

 

Maybe you get it metaphorically. I had a dream last night where I was as usual running to donuts and eating them. Then there was Gary with a guy named Milton holding hands. He told me I can not run to the donut and eat them. So I approached the donut, but then the donut flew away. I run to it again but it kept flying away. I got tired and woke up with an empty stomach :(. Have to read Young to interpret this crazy dream  :P .


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users